Blouin Danielle, Day Andrew G, Pavlov Andrey
J Grad Med Educ. 2011 Dec;3(4):517-23. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-10-00248.1.
Although never directly compared, structured interviews are reported as being more reliable than unstructured interviews. This study compared the reliability of both types of interview when applied to a common pool of applicants for positions in an emergency medicine residency program.
In 2008, one structured interview was added to the two unstructured interviews traditionally used in our resident selection process. A formal job analysis using the critical incident technique guided the development of the structured interview tool. This tool consisted of 7 scenarios assessing 4 of the domains deemed essential for success as a resident in this program. The traditional interview tool assessed 5 general criteria. In addition to these criteria, the unstructured panel members were asked to rate each candidate on the same 4 essential domains rated by the structured panel members. All 3 panels interviewed all candidates. Main outcomes were the overall, interitem, and interrater reliabilities, the correlations between interview panels, and the dimensionality of each interview tool.
Thirty candidates were interviewed. The overall reliability reached 0.43 for the structured interview, and 0.81 and 0.71 for the unstructured interviews. Analyses of the variance components showed a high interrater, low interitem reliability for the structured interview, and a high interrater, high interitem reliability for the unstructured interviews. The summary measures from the 2 unstructured interviews were significantly correlated, but neither was correlated with the structured interview. Only the structured interview was multidimensional.
A structured interview did not yield a higher overall reliability than both unstructured interviews. The lower reliability is explained by a lower interitem reliability, which in turn is due to the multidimensionality of the interview tool. Both unstructured panels consistently rated a single dimension, even when prompted to assess the 4 specific domains established as essential to succeed in this residency program.
尽管从未进行过直接比较，但据报道，结构化面试比非结构化面试更可靠。本研究比较了这两种面试方式应用于急诊医学住院医师培训项目共同申请人库时的可靠性。
2008年，在我们传统的住院医师选拔过程中使用的两次非结构化面试基础上增加了一次结构化面试。使用关键事件技术进行的正式工作分析指导了结构化面试工具的开发。该工具包括7个情景，评估了该项目中作为住院医师取得成功所必需的4个领域。传统面试工具评估5个一般标准。除了这些标准外，非结构化面试小组成员还被要求根据结构化面试小组成员评定的相同4个关键领域对每位候选人进行评分。所有3个面试小组都对所有候选人进行了面试。主要结果是整体、项目间和评分者间的可靠性、面试小组之间的相关性以及每个面试工具的维度。
共面试了30名候选人。结构化面试的整体可靠性达到0.43，非结构化面试的整体可靠性分别为0.81和0.71。方差成分分析显示，结构化面试的评分者间可靠性高、项目间可靠性低，而非结构化面试的评分者间可靠性高、项目间可靠性高。两次非结构化面试的总结测量结果显著相关，但与结构化面试均无相关性。只有结构化面试是多维的。
结构化面试的整体可靠性并不高于两次非结构化面试。较低的可靠性是由较低的项目间可靠性所解释的，而这又是由于面试工具的多维性所致。即使被要求评估在该住院医师培训项目中取得成功所必需的4个特定领域，两个非结构化面试小组也始终只评定一个维度。
